LegendadryPerc

Whether "most" drug users harm others or not seems to not be as important as the fact that many do. I doubt "most" people who do many things that are illeagal because of their potential affect on others, harm others. That doesn't mean that we should not have laws against such stuff. Doubtfull that "most" times someone drives drunk, a tragedy occurs. So, is the arguement still "do drugs affect others" or has it now shifted to "drugs do bad things, but what course of action will most effectively protect people from these things?" Also, I don't know much about drugs, it's a disturbing topic, and I see no benifit of knowing the difference between cocaine and meth, but it seems that marijuana is completely different from meth. I can understand the "alone by yourself" arguement for alchohol, but drugs (including tobacco) that are smoked, affect others - unless of course you are in the middle of nowhere. When you don't have the luxury of living in the middle of nowhere, your neibors smoke, and you don't have airconditioning, it's hard to believe it is their "right" to get filtered smoke, while you die either from heat exhaustion, or second hand smoke, especially with small children/when preg. Ya, we have laws against smoking at parks, etc. but I am constantly asking people to politely go somewhere else. People seem to think that being outside, makes it perfectly acceptable to smoke right next to someone - like being outside is going to magically prevent the smoke from being there. Then, is drug use personal choice? When you are drunk, high, whatever, are you making a personal choice? Can you be making a personal choice when you no longer have control over your thoughts, body, actions? A war on drugs doesn't necisarily mean they have to be illeagal. A war (call it moral if you want) merely should use the best recourse to accomplish it's goal. Obviously the current war isn't working and uses a lot of money. What other strategies might work better? Is our fear of backfire justifiable? Is this fear made greater because, although usually it is wonderfull to live in a democracy, making and disolving laws is painfully slow. If legalizing drugs turns out worse - it will probably take a life-time to legalize them, and then another lifetime to fix that error. Can we afford that risk? Rather scary stuff! Wish I knew all the answers.

"antiquated" is merely a way of putting down one way of thinking in favor of your own. Or is it merely meant as an asumption about what thinking is "new" and what thinking is "old". For some reason, it comes across to me as some form of "we know much better now." Logic and having a "reason" to believe something is wonderfull, but it does not make blind faith any less wonderfull. Logic is not some new and better form of thinking we have recently discovered, and we should all dispose of any other way of coming to a conclusion for fear of not being in the "in" croud. ST Matthew ch. 13 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Perhaps I am grossly misinterpreting your post, but it came across to me as implying that "being converted" and believing and following things "just" because the church, God, His mouthpieces, said it was so, was a bad thing. "God is no arespecter of persons" (Acts 10:34) Not all people are given the gift of logical thinking. Many people find it quite difficult. Anybody, no matter their intelectual ability or depth of learning, can know and follow God's word, His mouthpieces, and the gospel taught in His church. In a conference talk (thinking within the last 5 years) it was emphasised that it was perfectly fine to not have a personal testimony of every aspect of the gospel. We could follow in faith, and this, instead of seeming as a detrimantal thing, was actually an opportunity - a wonderfull oportunity for us to learn and grow. The one thing that the plan of salvation isn't, is stagnant.

Many "mormons" are (seemingly obvious from posts on this message board) pro-govt. controlled morals whether they directly affect others or not. But this does not mean that even "most" feal this way. The church has a long standing policy to stay out of politic. I have heard President Hinckly, when he doesn't even state a political opinion, but even something that could be second guessed as one, make it very clear that it is ONLY his personal opinion. The day before voting on a gambling law, we had a anti-gambling fireside at the church, reiterating the churches MORAL stance that gambling is wrong. BUT we were not told how to vote. That line was never crossed. The church's moral beliefs werer emphasised, and we were told to prayerfully consider how to vote. I don't know if and when the church has ever crossed this line, but it is rare, if ever. Sometimes I suspect that the church's moral statements have been misconstrued as political statements. Being a worldwide church, I don't think something as cultural as our opinion on what laws should and shouldn't control morals, is something the church can or should focus on. In the MTC, we are taught we are there to teach the gospel, not the American, or even Utah, culture. This said, I would talk to your boss. If he thinks you personally are facist, you can argue about points brought up here, that diferentiate your personal opinion about drugs, from Hitler's opinions on other things. But I feal it very important for you to point out that steryotyping the whole church as such, is blatant prejudice, no matter how much it may "seem" like it's true, from his very small personal experience with "mormons". I have lived in very morally controlling cultures, and also some, like your boss, that go "too far" in the opposite direction, steryotyping (often rudely) whole groups of people as "not open minded enough". I think of this rather amusing irony as severe close mindedness about close mindedness. But it is not fun to have to deal with first hand, especially with someone you come in frequent contact with. It seems to be this rather pridefull, holier than thou at open mindedness, attitude that merely gives people an "excuse" to think of others as less than themselves. Rather silly to have an excuse to do something so hurtfull to oneself. Like having a good excuse to eat poison. Whether the specific incidence of laws prohibiting drugs, is even "just" a moral law is questionable. There is nothing scientific saying that gay couples, or polygamists, are more abusive than traditional families. Nothing saying that "extremly" gay people are dangerous. We are to welcome them to church meetings, fellowship them, etc. But "extremely" drunk people, or people on drugs, can directly be linked to much higher instances of abuse. Evicting a drunk person from our church meetings, seems like it would be completely reasonable. How to we differenciate between laws that prevent one encountering a drunk/drugged violent person on the street, and ones that say it's OK to be drunk/drugged. I'd rather be pro-active, than merely prosecute those who "cross the line". When a person is "gone" on drugs, it's doubtfull that they will or can rationally think that they'd better not cross some line, or they will be in trouble. Aside from that delima (which theoretically could be solved, but I'd rather know the solution before I vote to legalize all drugs - It's not fun to be limitted in where in a city one can go, simply to protect other's "freedoms" to make it more likely that they would act in a violent way.) there is the drug pushers, delima. I have heard the arguement that there would be less incintive to push drugs, if they were legal, but I see so many detrimental things pushed on and accepted by the general public, that I am not comforted. Comercials and advertisements push many, many disturbing things on people who end up using, buying, accepting, them, where otherwise they wouldn't. Not merely rational people being informed that a product or idea is out there, but these products, in the name of money, being sold to those who are conviniently kept unaware of alternatives. I know that drugs are not the cause of this problem, but while it exists, is it safe to legalize them? I like rather simple laws. Regulating when how and where what drugs can be used or sold, seems like it would take a large amount of effort and dead trees (paperwork). jmho - that although many "mormons" tend to be culturally minded to make laws based soley on morals, keeping drugs illeagal isn't even necisarily one of these. Make it clear to your boss that he is overstepping the line of having a personal opinion about your stance on legalizing drugs, and blantant (misinformed) prejudice against your sacred religious beliefs!

It's not that creativity just isn't fostered. It's not that only math and reading are taught. Going to a school and learning math and reading, and getting everything else from somewhere else, would be just fine. It's that creativity is stifled. Creativity IN math and reading is discouraged (in the cases I've seen!) Math is taught to be something that is merely memorized and students are disciplined for reading books when they should be ummm... waiting in line? It may be dangerous to paint education with a broad brush, but NCLB has made it pretty safe to paint public schools with said brush.

Is this an asumption that females aren't as good of coaches, aren't as likely to want to coach, or that schools don't seriously consider them as coaches as much as they do males?ya, as has been said, simple answer: NCLB I don't know if anybody else has noticed, but when kids watch TV for "too long", they get this dazed glassy eyed look, seem uninvolved with the program, and ssem bored but continue to watch. I have noticed the exact same look on the faces of most public school kids. (most, because I believe public school does meet the needs of some kids.) I have analized it, and blame it on the "something exciting is coming up next" syndrome. However boring the TV show may be, there is always the play on natural human curiousity (the force behind our desire to learn) by the hints that it might get interesting, or the comercials for the next show, and how interesting it's going to be. Often this interesting "coming up" thing turns out to be just as boring, but there's always the potential, and sometimes, the desire is fulfilled. School is like this. There is always the carrot dangling of some 5 min. activity that is really really fun, but the majority of school time is boring. Taking the most creative and knowledge hungry years of ones life, and preventing learning, by making the kids follow rules and protocal that require lots of sitting still, standing in line, raising your hand, etc. Given the teacher student ratio, these rules are understandable, but hardly arguable as even time where students are allowed to learn to their hearts content. Even the "education" part of it prevents learning, as it is so stuctured, and as has been mentioned, stuck on right answers, etc., that few oportunities are open for the kid to be free to just explore and learn about something. Add to that NCLB, and even good creative teachers practically sit there in handcuffs, reduced to little more than puppets. While law makers who have never and never will even ever see the kids, let alone know their unique talents and needs, direct the now robotic teachers, on exactly how to phrase the questions, "because that is how they will be asked on the test." Education does not suck creativity, but the huge beurocratic anomaly that our public school system has become, often passing over the kids it is supposedly "for" - it would take a nice stretch of the imagination to call that "education", lol!

Thanks Aphrodite. I guess I should have read the rules before. I was scared they would be some long boring technical stuff, but the actual rules seem to be rather concise and make a lot of sence. It seems that on many potentially interesting threads, the vast majority of posts don't follow the rules. Kinda makes those threads no fun to reply to... I appreciate administators not having a heavy hand. but should the rules be changed? Should we just go on ignoring them? Should we cry out for heavier administrator involvement? (I'd rather a different way) Is turning the discussions back towards the ideasl the rules outline, desired? If so, how can we do this? thanks. GoodK, after reading some other threads, and realizing which posts you have written, and which posts were written about you, the misunderstanding on this thread is completely understandable. You have persecution complex!

I guess in reality, I haven't been around long enough to have more than a fantasy view of what education used to be, or should be in my mind. But the thoughts on education becoming broader and less deep, get me going on my soap box, of how public education has become this big monster of administation, etc., with the kids sitting at the bottom getting whatever the creature gives them. There is a appalling lack of freedom to learn what one wants in public education. This, I think contributes significantly to taking the broad, but not in depth path. If everybody learns the exact same thing, it becomes hard to go in depth, as not everybody has the thought skills or desire to pursue any given thing, in depth.

good list. Having lived where electricity and trasportation are scarce, and with little money, much of it rings very true!

That's the difference between feminism compatable with LDS doctrine, and that which would take isues with our whole family, motherhood, preisthood, teachings. Perfect statement.

good thoughts. I can't seem to find the article, but don't really want to read it anyway, except for I am curious about the court ruling against voters. I am curious about this, because there are two ways it could be played out. One: I only feel safe in a democracy where religion can't be voted on. Two: we talk of "balanced" powers being devided into 3 branches. I don't know history very well, but in my adult lifetime (since I've actually been allowed to vote), it seems that we live more (as some have pointed out) in a dictatorship, ruled by judges "interpretation of the law", "interpreted" to mean "If I'm the judge, I can twist those words to mean whatever I want." This makes voting on a law seem useless, as however well we seem to word it, a judge will be able to claim it "means" something else. I don't know which of these two concerns the ruling falls under, as I didn't read the article. I don't like reading negative stuff, so, other than that, I don't really want to read it anyway. On that same note - so as not to confuse people - I have not read many of the articles linked to or posted on here, for that same reason. The fears about force "acceptance" of untraditional marriage, expressed on this thread, are not irrational. One needs only to glance at the abortion situation, to know that fear of it not being "just" about 2 people's rights to do whatever they want, is legitimate. I think also the conflict of "feeling safe in the good old USA" and "It's the end of the world!" has a lot to do with where in the good old USA one lives. It's like nature. Here we talk of conservation, other places they still talk of the fight for survival of man vs. nature. Big cities on the coasts, I dare say it is fight for survival of the right to follow basic moral values. Small landlocked farming town in the bible belt, one could entertain the illusion that these are exagerations. My examples are extremes, but I think ones surroundings and the laws and way the laws are interpreted where one lives, seems to make a huge difference. That said, I think that the things cited as fears of legalized untraditional marriage, are not directly caused by it. In fact, I believe they are caused by the same thing that causes people to call untraditional marriage illeagal: govt. involvement! It is the same thing we see all too often in other areas where laws claiming to protect freedoms, really destroy them. Take religion in public schools for instance. The argument, if religion was allowed in public schools, the govt. would be forcing religion on every kid. No one stops to think that it may be the govt. forcing - mandatory cumpulsary school (laws that say the govt., not parents, gets to decide that every kid must go to govt. schools, or "allow" exceptions.) - that it might be the govt. forcing aspect of it, not the religious aspect, that makes it wrong. So we ignore bad govt. forcing laws, and futily pursue anti-religion laws, in the name of freedom. Or the couple (years and years ago) who concieved and had a kid, because their other kid needed bone marrow or something, and her sibling was the only one who could give it to her, so they had a sibling. Huge hysteria over why people should or shouldn't be "allowed" to have kids. Arguements were made, and seemingly accepted, that if reasons for having kids were not regulated, this would lead to abortion harvests, where people got preg. just to harvest usefull and even lifesaving things from the unborn fetuses. Ya, lets regulate fertility rights in the name of freedom! Whereas, obviously (to pro-lifers like myself) the problem wasn't in lack of fertility regulation by the govt., but in abortion laws (won't go off on that - take too long, and I get too emotional!) All the problems with gay marriage, that I have heard people talk about on this thread, are not "caused" by the evil of gay marriage, but by other laws (or imagined laws to be - though some are very justifiable fears!) that are wrong in and of themselves for varying reasons. The problems these laws cause with gay marriage are just one example of why these laws are wrong - not proof that gay marriage is wrong. “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” I guess you'd have to define "promote" as well as what measures and how they strengthen the family. To me, the more and bigger the govt. gets, including defining marriage, the more they take away from the family unit. The govt. defining morals and what is "good" for kids and what is "bad", (aside from extremes - not for ignoring blatantly abusive parents), deteriorates the societal view of the family as the fundamental, and main, unit. Family choices in education, health care, marriage, even things as sacred as birth, are all currently regulated by our "free" govt. Yes, we are in desperate need to correct these. Giving the govt. more power, in the guise of protecting (promoting?) our values and definition of a family, is imo very dangerous.

Wow! mind if I pass this on to some freinds who would appreciate it? What insightfullness! Other wonderfull thoughts too, but don't know how to quote more than one person! lol Yes, this does beg the question of "what is inteligece?" also, "is inteligence the goal?"

kinda off topic, but that is what I love about the scriptures! I can read the same thing every day, and get something different every time!

I think personal experiences are fine, except for when they are accepted as being true in more than that situation. For example, someone asks if you can wear a hat to church. Someone tells of their personal experience where others were disapproving of wearing a hat to church, and it is concluded that wearing a hat to church is a bad idea. Especially when emotion is involved, personal stories often carry a lot of weight, sometimes more than seems reasonable to use logic nuts, lol! Thanks for pointing out that perhaps emotional nuts think we are as misguided using soley logic, as we think they are when they use soley emotion.

What original post? Sorry about the confusion. I assumed your post was talking about what I was talking about - attacks on personal belief. So when you said that a call for evidence could wrongly be seen as persecution, I was saying that it was. Perfect example you gave - the whole "you can't call yourself Christian because.." thing. If, in a thread someone calls for evidence that you are Christian - that just feels wrong. Who are they to ever need to judge whether you are Christian or their definition of Christian or not? How would you ever "prove" that on the internet anyway? Like in the example I gave where someone was saying mormons worship a different Christ. To me, that is no different than saying black people worship a different Christ. Who can tell me who I worship? Only I know that deep in my heart. But, then, like I said, I grew up in environments that respected religious differences the same way I assume others respect cultural differences. Nobody would ever, ever, define another persons beliefs for him. No matter how much I have studies a religion, or even once was a member of it, I would not tell someone I knew what they believed better than they did themselves! Is this common other places? I have encountered it before, but not any more often than racism, nor did I take those who did it any more seriously than I take racist comments.